Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WOOD WASTE PROCESSING
IN IOWA
Prepared for:
Iowa Department ofNatural Resources Waste Management Assistance Division
by:
Grant Crowell Christopher Paar
Jennifer Ryan Stuart Turner
May 8, 1996
Updated November 1996 by:
Bryan Schuster Chris Diggins
Every effort has been made to verify the information provided in each entry. No warranty, expressed or implied, and no endorsement of any facility, business, organization or individual is suggested by inclusion or exclusion in this directory.
For those who cannot read the size of the print in this publication, a larger sized version of the text is available by contacting the Department of Natural Resources.
Telephone: 515/281-4367 TDD: 515/242-5967
Or write to:
Department of Natural Resources Wallace State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0034
Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age of Discrimination Act of 1975 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, federal regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or handicap. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Director, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, 900 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0034 or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D. C. 20240.
Printed on recycled paper with soy ink.
WOOD WASTE PROCESSING IN IOWA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·-····-·······-············--···-··-····-·--·····-······ iii
LIST OF TABLES •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••• iv
LIST OF MAPS ...................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY··························-·································-··············-···· 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4
METHODOLOGY ••••••••••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•.•••••••..••••••••••.••••••••.••••••••••••••••• 9
DATA ANALYSIS ••••••••.••••••••••••.•••••••••••..••••.•••.•.•..•••..••••...•••••.••••••.•••.••••••••••.•••••••• 12
NATIONAL WOOD WASTE RECYCLING MARKET ..................................... 33
CASE STUDIES .•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••.•••••••••••••.••••••••..••••.•••••••••.•.••.•••••.•..••••••••••••• 35
RECOMMENDATIONS •••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.•••••.•.••••.••.••...•.•••••.••••.•••..••••••••••••••••••• 38
CONCLUSIONS •...•.••••.•.•••••.•••••••..••.•••••.••••.....••.•.••.•.•..••...••••.••.•.••.•••••.•••..•.•••••••••. 50
SOURCES CITED ................................................................................................. 51
APPENDIX A (Survey)
APPENDIX B (Tables from M.L. Smith report regarding wood as a boiler fuel)
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The structure of tbe wood waste stream ················-··················--···-·· 5
Figure 2. Materials generated in MSW --·-····--·-·-······-·······-·········· 7
Figure 3. Waste generated vs. Waste used-·-·············-·················-············-······ 8
Figure 4. Composition of wood waste stream ····-···························-············-..... 16
lll
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Average annual rates of increase (or decrease) of generation of
materials in municipal solid waste stream •••• ·-·······················-············· 6
Table 2. Respondents engaged in wood waste recycling··········-···········-············· 12
Table 3. Assumptions converting survey measurement unit to pounds •••••••••••••••• 18
Table 4. Composition of wood waste stream of survey respondents. ••••••••••••• ·-···· 27
Table 5. Uses of wood waste in Iowa-·----·······-·············---··-···········-······ 29
Table 6. Amount of wood waste products sold annually ..•••••••••••••• ·-·-·--····-······ 30
Table 7. Percent of national processors bandling wood waste materials by type •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.•••.••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••.••••••••••••• 34
Table 8. Range of heat values for different industrial fuels •••••••••••.•.•••••.•••••.••••••• 42
IV
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. Responding wood waste processors--·--·····--····-······-·······-··--··-·· 14
Map 2. Wood waste processors by organizational structure·-····-·············---··· 15
Map 3. Pallet processors-···-····--·-··----·-··-·······-······················-··-··--·-· 22
Map 4. Potential annual processing capacity for pallets •.• ·-··-··-···············-······ 23
Map 5. Potential annual processing capacity for brush············-··············-········· 24
Map 6. Sawdust processing in Iowa •• ·-····-····-·················································-·· 25
Map 7. Animal Bedding Production in Iowa ..•....••••.•.... ·--·······-····-··················· 31
Map 8. Wood waste processed annually for heat or electricity generation •..•....• 32
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this report is to gain a better understanding of the wood waste
market in Iowa through surveying the processors of wood waste. A main component of
the report was to follow up a survey sent out by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources Waste Management Assistance Division to 14 7 public waste management
organizations and private businesses, including some nearby businesses in Illinois. Of the
147 surveys sent out initially, there were 77 respondents. Of those 77 who returned
surveys, 64 qualified as potential wood waste processors with 53 of those currently
engaged in wood waste processing. The information that was obtained from the surveys
was entered in a spreadsheet from which a database was created. From this database,
maps were produced using the Arc View 2.1 software. The maps provided the basis for
the analysis and recommendation sections of this report.
The survey that was sent out was a two page questionnaire which asked for details
of any wood waste processing operation. The questions were an effort to gain insight into
the types and amounts (tons per year) of wood waste used, and potential capacity of wood
waste processors including any cases of excess or shortage in supply. It was also an effort
to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the emerging wood waste market.
The surveys elicited a lot of helpful information. Our findings show that sixty
nine percent (53) of the respondents presently use wood waste. Of these, many reported
what they considered to be barriers to wood waste processing. Among these barriers,
capital costs were cited as the principal obstacle to operating a wood waste processing
facility. Machinery specific to wood processing, such as chippers and tub grinders, are
priced out of reach of most processors and potential processors. Other costs were listed
as well. These were mainly the high prices involved in transportation, receiving and
processing of materials. Additionally, the immature nature of the market was cited as an
impediment to starting such an operation. The most common market imperfections listed
were the inconsistency of the wood waste supply and the relative lack of communication
between producers and processors.
1
Findings
The findings of this report according to the survey results are as follows:
• Animal bedding, compost, and mulch were the end uses most frequently produced from wood waste.
• Over 44,000 tons of wood are currently used for heat or electricity production. • At least ten different wood waste uses were cited in Iowa. • There is much that can be done to improve communication across the state simply by
connecting the wood waste generators with the processors. . • Clean, untreated wood is preferred to other types of wood such as chemically tainted
or pressure treated wood. • One third of the respondents would accept any type of wood waste. • Pallets and sawdust comprise 62 percent of the wood waste stream, used by
respondents. • There is twice as much wood waste being used now as there was in 1993 according to
the figures presented in UNI study, Closing the Loop on Wood Waste, which analyzed only wood waste being used internally by generators.
Recommendations
The state oflowa currently has an undeveloped market which handles wood
waste. The lack of information, communication and market certainty all work to prevent
this market from expanding. The technology is available as is the desire to divert wood
waste from landfills. What is required at this stage is some intervention by state
government organizations.
First, the predominant pallet recycling and mulch! animal bedding producers in
Iowa can be further expanded with the continued help of the Iowa Department ofNatural
Resources. Through continued use of the LAF AP grants, the state can assist its wood
waste processors in the expansion of their facilities and operation. With this, the wood
waste market can begin to be consistent, manageable and profitable while at the same time
diverting valuable wood from the state's landfills.
Also, through greater use of wood waste by the Iowa Department of
Transportation (!DOT) for roadways and landscaping, the State oflowa can take the lead
and move the wood waste market to the next level. This can be accomplished through a
requirement that !DOT purchasers and their independent contractors be required to
purchase their mulch and wood chips from Iowa's wood waste processors.
2
Lastly, there is the possibility of using wood chips as a boiler fuel in 30 industrial
boilers located in Iowa's nine largest counties. This idea, which stems from a feasibility
study done by M.L. Smith Environmentalists, can be profitable for the industry as well as
Iowa's wood waste processors. In order for there to be the consistent supply of wood
necessary for such a conversion, these nine counties should create a public outreach
program which begins to collect wood waste from its citizens. Either through a
permanent drop-off site or a bi-annual collection day, the wood waste processors would
have another source of wood waste with which to supply industrial boilers. The
conversion of such boilers can begin with the three state-owned boilers which are located
at Iowa's three state universities in Ames, Iowa City and Cedar Falls. Using these three
boilers as a case study, other industries can analyze the feasibility of the conversion and
begin to do the same with their boilers.
3
INTRODUCTION
Wood waste is a valuable and recoverable resource that is currently being
landfilled in growing quantities. Increased pressure on landfill space across the nation has
raised interest in diverting this refuse from landfills. Yet, diversion of wood waste is made
particularly difficult by the various categories which make up the wood waste market. '
These categories are:
1. Brush, tree trimmings, and stumps from various land clearing activities 2. Scrap wood, wood chips, and sawdust from sawmills, cabinetmakers, and furniture manufacturing processes 3. Construction and demolition waste which comes from construction cutoffs and pressure-treated lumber 4. Used pallets, crates, and other wood packaging.
The number and variety of wood waste types can cause problems for processors in
sorting and collecting the appropriate material for their operation (See Figure I). In a
State as dispersed as Iowa, this variety makes it especially difficult to find the large
quantities of various categories of wood waste required for most wood waste processing
operations.
Over the last several decades, the generation of wood waste has been increasing
nationwide. (See Table l). According to the Regwnal Planning User Guide: Rural Solid
Waste Management, the generation of wood waste has been projected to increase faster
than the US population by the turn of the century. In its Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update, the US Environmental Protection Agency
reported that 13.7 million tons of wood waste was generated in 1993. This represents 6.6
percent of the total waste stream in the United States. (See Figure 2).
4
Types of wood waste
J Drush, tree ..,.._ trimmings, stumps
Figure I. The structure of the wood waste stream
Processor
Chippers, tub grinders
---f Scrap wood, wood r ~ Particle and press board makers .... chips, sawdust
Construction and ..,.._, demolition Pallet Recyclers
..,.._
Types of processed
output
Wood chips for mulch
Wood chips for animal bedding
Particle and press board
Recycled pallets
Fuel
'------------------------.tLandfllls
Table 1. Average annual rates of increase (or decrease) of generation of materials in municipal solid waste TyPes 1960-1970 1970-1980 . 1980-1990 1990-2000 Paper and paperboard 4.0 Glass 6.6 Metals 3.0 Plastics 22.5 Wood 2.8 All other materials 4.3 Food wastes 0.5 Yard trimmings 1.5 TOTAL MSW 3.3
2.2 1.7 0.2 9.9 5.5 4.3 0.3 . 1.7 2.2
2.9 -1.2 1.3 8.4 6.2 3.9 0.0 2.4 2.7
2.1 0.6 1.5 2.5 2.7 1.9 0.6
-4.5 1.0
Population growth 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 Source: Chapter 4: Solid Waste Characterization. Note: In annual percent by weight.
It should be noted, however, that wood waste generated by construction and
demolition activities were not included in the EPA's analysis. A large portion of the 13.7
million tons of wood waste is made up of containers and packaging. According to the
EPA report, 9.5 million tons of the total wood waste is used pallets, crates, and other
wood packaging. The EPA report also found that 9. 6 percent of the 13.7 million tons of
wood waste material was recovered in 1993.
The ever increasing generation of municipal solid waste led to the creation of the
Waste Reduction and Recycling Act of 1989 (HF753). Many states and municipalities are
trying to meet waste reduction goals similar to Iowa's goal of 50 percent waste reduction
by the year 2000. This has prompted the Iowa Department ofNatural Resources to
identifY segments of the waste streams in order to target them for reduction or diversion.
6
Figure 2. Materials generated in MSW, 1993
Food Wastes 6.7%
All Other Materials 9.00/o
6.6%
Yard Trimmings 15.9%
Plastics 9.3%
Metals 8.3%
6.6%
Source: CharacteriZation of.Niunicipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update
Paper & Paperboard 36.5%
In 1993, the University ofNorthern Iowa (UNI) conducted a study of wood waste
in Iowa called Closing the Loop on Wood Wastes. This study identified and surveyed
wood waste generators and users across eastern Iowa to determine the appropriate
applications for wood wastes generated in the state. The report estimated that there are
about 270,000 tons of wood waste produced in Iowa per year, which is low by national
standards. The report also estimates that only one-fifth (55,000 tons) of the wood waste
is utilized by the producers in their day-to-day operations (See Figure 3). This illustrates
the significant wood waste problem with 80 percent being landfilled across the nation.
7
Figure 3. Waste generated vs. Waste used
300,000
Tons
Sawdust Woodehips Larger pieces Wood types
Source: Closing the Loop: UNJ Study, 1993
269,399
Total
• Wood waste generated •Wood waste used
According to the study, the market for the use of wood waste in Iowa is not well
established, partly due to the fact that there are many small producers who are
geographically dispersed across eastern Iowa. (Closing the Loop, 1993). The wood
waste market is also disorganized and lacks formal communication between generators
and processors. (Closing the Loop, 1993).
The purpose of this study is to survey these dispersed processors and to identifY
the key obstacles they face in their daily operations. This paper will begin by discussing a
survey which was sent out by the Iowa Department ofNatural Resources (IDNR) Waste
Management Assistance Division (WMAD). In effect, the analysis of this data will enable
8
us to better understand the nature of this fledgling market. Next, the paper will offer case
studies of successful wood waste processing operations nationally and locally. The paper
will conclude with recommendations for making this young market more efficient and
profitable, to reduce barriers to potential wood waste processors, and most importantly to
reduce the amount of wood waste being landfilled.
METHODOLOGY
The foundation of our research into wood waste in Iowa is a survey, which was
drafted by WMAD officials, and edited by the Field Problems members. This survey was
then either faxed or mailed to 14 7 places statewide as well as in neighboring states. The
recipients, identified by WMAD officials, were potential wood waste processors. They
were a varied group consisting of both public and private organizations. The majority of
the public sector groups were city and county landfills. The surveys sent out to the private
sector covered a broad range of operations, from large pallet recyclers like Riverside
Pallets, to such eclectic enterprises as the New Melleray Abbey, near Dubuque.
The return rate of 52 percent (77) was lower than we had hoped for, but was
acceptable with our IDNR clients. However, of the surveys we received, 69 percent (53)
were active in wood waste processing. It is important to note that the IDNR had sent
out another survey approximately two weeks prior to the Wood Waste survey. This
survey, which gathered data for a recycling directory, most likely contributed to our lower
than expected response rate.
9
The Wood Waste sutvey consists of three pages, the first of which is a letter from
Teresa Hay, the WMAD Administrator. This page outlines the two main purposes of the
sutvey: to help wood waste processors improve their supplies of wood waste and to
enhance and expand the markets for recycled wood products. The actual sutvey (included
in Appendix A) has 18 questions, eight of which are not relevant to our study. Those
questions, 8-15, were included by the IDNR for another purpose. The information
provided by the sutvey helped to narrow our particular work to focusing on the following
conditions of the market for recycled wood products. The information provided by the
Wood Waste sutvey was:
1. Where current processors of wood waste are in Iowa. 2. If good, stable markets exist for the processed and manufactured wood products. 3. If there is enough capacity to process all of the wood waste that is currently
generated.
Our next task was to follow up on all of the non-responses to the sutvey. This was
quite time consuming, given the high amount of non-responses. Follow-up phone calls
were made, and the sutvey was either conducted over the phone, or another copy of the
survey was sent. At least two attempts were made to follow-up on each non-response.
Near the end of the follow-up process, the Field Problems group began entering
the data into a spreadsheet that contained a list of all of the survey recipients. After that,
time was spent "tightening up" the spreadsheet. We looked at the information provided
by each respondent, and standardized it in the spreadsheet. For example, some
respondents provided answers to questions in measurements of cubic yards, while others
gave numbers using tons as a unit of measurement.
10
A consistent database is very important for the GIS component of the project. The
maps all require a database as the starting point for creating a map. In order to show
anything significant, all data must be standardized. The database and maps were created
at the IDNR's Geologic Survey Bureau. We used their facilities and software programs
(Dbase IV, Arc View 2.1) to create the maps included in this report. The purpose of using
GIS was to provide a detailed visual analysis of the data, by interpreting survey results in
various graphical forms.
There was a total of77 responses to the survey. The ensuing table lists the
organizations that, according to the survey, are currently active in the recycled wood
waste market. These 53 firms form the basis of our GIS analysis.
11
Table 2. Respondents engaged in wood waste recvcling
Aul:rey Altena Jeld-Wen Fiber Products oflowa AMF Pallets Jolm Co.n:pany
Addoco, Inc. Kinze .tvfanu:fucturi B & B BOOc!ing Koster Grain
Bee Line Prod Corp. Landfill ofDes Moines Big Tin::Der Inc. Langenbach Wood Products, Inc.
Big D umix:r M & N Pallet Bob Lewis Pallets Metro Waste Authority
Bluestem Corqx>sting Facility lvlidland Paper Buttenrore Lun:iler lvlidwest Faswall
Buy-Rite Pallets lvlidwest Walnut By-Product Teclmologies Inc. Ottmnwa-Wapello County Sanitaxy Landfill
Carroll County Solid Waste Mgn:t. Comn Pak-A-Way Container Service
01ase :tvfanu:fucturing Paltech Enterprises City of Grinnell Corqx>sting Facility Pallet Industries, Inc.
City of:tvfarshalltown Pierce Luniler Inc. City ofDavenport R&D Recycling
City ofDes Moines Riverside Pallets City ofDeWrtt Sanborn P & L
Estherville Pallet Co. . Sho-Dust Bedding Fayette County Recycling Sim:msen Rendering
Four Oaks Faxm& Stable Still's Lawn Orna!rents
Great River Regional Waste Authority Stuhr Enterprises, Inc.
Hom: Recycling Exchange Top Notch Ent., Inc.
J & B Pallet Corr.pany Trailer Transfer Service Inc.
J & M Woodshaving's Woodbwy Cotmty AreaS. W. Agency
Jacobs Energy Corp.
DATA ANALYSIS
General results
As mentioned in the methodology section of this report, 14 7 recycling businesses
were identified by the IDNR and selected for inclusion in the wood waste processing
12
database. Selected businesses were first asked if they currently use wood waste in their
operations. Of the 77 respondents to the wood waste survey, 13 (17 percent) were
immediately eliminated from the data analysis. These 13 respondents stated that they did
not currently use wood waste and that they had not considered it as a possibility for their
operation. Because of these negative responses, they were not considered legitimate
processors of wood waste and were removed from the analysis.
Eleven ( 14 percent) respondents stated that they would at least consider using
wood waste. Businesses that are presently using wood waste comprised 69 percent (53)
of the responses (see Map 1). Of these analyzed businesses, 37 were private
organizations, 14 were public operations, one claimed non-profit status, and one
listed their organizational type as public non-profit (see Map 2).
Map 1 shows the basic geographical distribution of all processors who currently
use wood waste. Wood waste processing businesses in one form or another are
distributed throughout the state. However, the concentration of processors is greater in
the eastern half of the state.
13
N
w
s
Ma11 1. Res110nding wood waste lll'ocessors
~·ON omo~ """'ON e"'' <O.,un< M~moo WO n< ~""'~ HOW"O MNN'~" "-~"'"'
"- SIOUl .. 08AIIEH Cl.AY .J. P~lO ALTO HANCOCK C£R 0 Q·.O .. "'. 0
. ) • I"' tJ 41 G!J flOYD CHICKASAW
I • MYETTE ClA~ON ,J •nuourn _,.,, '"'"""" """'"'" ~~"" w"""' ~ ,~ oun,. M'"'" • ~
• w"'"" mbw' I '"""'"" MUWAA' ""'""-" ~· • • L"' "c "~om C\ "'YUON "'""~ """''"
1
~ • •
'"'OOeuftY lENTON • UNN .IONfl .IAQ(I~ .I.: TAW. ' ..
\ \""' OUW~OI'ID C.O.MoU OI'U!l!Nf •ooNI! If y W.I\SHAll • 1). ~ ' • ~ • c"'"" ~ • ll COMO • ../
fiA.MIION IHD..V "-UOUBON QUTI-UUf DAllAS POut JASflfl'l POWESHifK lOW" ::\ON _..;;.... .::;:"
' '~· . .._~ (~ J I -W womN.- ~ ""'")'""' "" """ "'""" w'""'" "'"'" "'"'"'' "'*"' w"aNOr:'' r-- L....!!! ,~ Q • -
E
I f-u ~"'""'"' "'"' mooN cuo• '""'. "'""" w•~ '""'"''" "'""' "
VI<NIIUIUN
• Wood waste processors ~County Borders
M ~i~~;:t~~e~~~.~;O ~~~lation
N
w
s
MatJ 2. Wood waste 11rocesso•~s by organizational structure
"'' " 0 ~.... "'~""'" ~ .... ) i_"" "'" ..... . ... """" ··~""' "'" ' •. . """"" - -''"' ooou •••• ouo ... ~<ou no """"" ...,'"'''"' } ~· -6 4 IS):J ''"'" .
J,l • • """' ."! ~ o:u .... ~
"'"oviN ""'"" .. ' ..,. ...... ,. ••<"""""' ...,.ootoo "" 10 ~1 , .. ~ '~ """'" OAhiO 0
• v - - -1~-~-·
~·;~0 L ~ •· =~· ....... o ...... ···· .. ~.. h • •
"" . - ... . ..... .... . .... '·~ \\:- ....... "'"" ...... .... ... ....... . . '
~' ~ • l'"\ ~ • • .... '1 I"' 0 _ ..... !!} \ - 0 .,
Koo HO< -•••
0,
0 ..
0 "'"' "" """ "'"~' ooo •~o - ~:J
E
e ocon _... ~ ' . ....... .
1 , F.!!= ..... ~ J [ii:JV <! J\ J . ··- •.. - ..... , !:?-' _y- ~· 11""7'' .... .... ....... ..... ..... ...... r- L-.!!
\ir.. Q • ~-'"'""'"" ......... ...... ........ •~•o• <U ... I W<•l •oHooO "'"U.k. ...... OU ....... . .,.
I "' .. - .... ....... ~ ........ ..... ,..... ·~···"' ....... .......... ... :
~ ) • 1
~ Organization type + nonprofit • private 0 public • public nonprofit ~County Borders
~ ~~~~~:~~~~~~~.~;0 ~:~lation
Twenty respondents offered what they perceived as barriers to processing wood
waste. The most frequently cited obstacle to wood waste processing was the need to
acquire wood waste processing machinery. Small chippers cost between $6,000 and
$20,000, while large chippers cost between $100,000 and $250,000. Other businesses
replied that there was a lack of a consistent supply of wood waste; that the processing
and receiving costs were too high; and that the market for wood chips and animal bedding
has declined.
After these preliminary questions, the processors were asked to solicit some
figures regarding the composition of the waste stream and the products produced from
wood waste. Wood waste was categorized into seven possible sources for data collection:
construction and demolition (C & D), pallets, brush, stumps and tree trunks, sawdust, saw
mill scrap, and manufacturing (i.e. furniture). First, the total tons of each wood waste
type used per year by each of the industries responding was determined (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Composition of wood waste stream
Sawmill :scnp 19%
Source: 1996 Wood Waste Su111ey.
Othc:r.Y8Btttucll0n &Dd demolition 5% 1%
......... 24%
16
Assumptions
Due to the inconsistency of the data received, an effort was made to present the
data in similar units. Many responses to the survey presented wood waste figures in both
cubic yards and tons. Professionals listed as contact people for some of the processors
were contacted in an effort to make some gross conversions of cubic yards to tons. A
source at Sho-Dust Bedding estimated animal bedding to weigh 375 pounds per cubic
yard and 444 pounds per cubic yard of mulch. Koster Grain, who presented their data by
semi load, estimated a semi load of animal bedding weighs between 12 and 25 tons. We
assumed that one semi load of animal bedding equals 18 tons of material.
For compost, Bluestem Solid Waste Agency offered the estimate of 1,215 pounds
per cubic yard for finished compost. According to a spokesperson for Riverside Pallet,
pallets range from 30 to 150 pounds with an across the board average of 55 pounds per
pallet. The On-Farm Composting Handbook edited by Robert Rynk, provided the figure
of 1,296 pounds per cubic yard of tree trimmings. After discussion with Garth Frable of
the WMAD, we assumed that this figure applied to the brush category. Stumps and tree
trunks, wood for heat recovery, and pressboard were assumed to weigh twice as much as
brush per cubic yard.
It must be stressed that these assumptions only apply to this particular analysis.
Conversions used to standardize the units of measure reported in the survey are just
estimates arrived at after conversations with responding wood waste processors (see
Table 3). Weights per cubic yard and by semi load vary substantially with the moisture
17
content of the material, the size of the mulch or compost particles, and the type of wood
used.
Table 3. Assumptions converting survey measurement units to pounds Wood waste product Animal bedding Animal bedding Compost Mulch Stumps/tree trunks Wood for heat recovery Pressboard Brush (tree trimmings) Pallets Source: See text.
Explanation of terms
Conversion 375 lbs./cubic yard
· 18 tons/semi load 1,215 lbs./cubic yard 444 lbs./cubic yard 2,592 lbs.lcubic yard 2,592lbs./cubic yard 2,592 lbs./cubic yard 1,296 lbs./cubic yard 55 lbs./pallet
Without some explanation of the terms used in the survey, this section may be
confusing to some. Please refer to the original survey in Appendix A for an illustrated
example of the survey questions referred to. Question 2 asked the survey respondents to
indicate the types and amounts of wood waste used, and their potential capacity for
processing additional waste. Those responding were also asked to disclose ifthere were
any cases of excess supply or lack of supply (excess demand) of a particular material.
Tables presented in this section use this survey language for description.
These figures have been aggregated from all of the survey respondents. There
were 35 possible response categories for this question and no firm provided a response in
every category. In fact, many firms filled out only one or two categories. Therefore, there
were many blank entries in the database that made the aggregation of this data necessary.
18
The aggregation should, however, provide an accurate depiction of the trends in wood
waste processing in Iowa.
Some firms produced wood waste within their own operation. These industries
indicated this by stating the total tons of wood waste generated on site. Some industries,
for example, may produce sawmill scrap and use it for heat recovery. Another example
could be that landfills produce a certain amount ofbrush waste due to their own
landscaping operations. This is by no means the sole component of their brush stream, but
is included to show that wood waste processors are also generators. However, only 25
percent (40,564 tons) of the total wood waste used was produced on site by the
responding businesses. Ideally, firms would be able to generate and process equal
amounts of wood waste. However, this is not the case and by analyzing on site wood
waste generation and processing, we can better understand the characteristics of this
emerging market.
Survey responses
Overall, there are 162,055.5 tons of wood waste used in Iowa each year
by the 77 survey respondents. This is approximately triple the numbers reported in the
UN! study, Closing the Loop on Wood Waste, 1993.
Construction and demolition. Only three firms reported using construction
and demolition waste. Together they used 1,420 tons of C & D annually. None of
these businesses claimed to generate any C & D waste on site. In fact, one of the three
firms reported an excess supply of 550 tons of C & D waste per year. C & D wood waste
19
comprised only one percent of the total wood waste used annually according to the survey
(see Figure 3).
Pallets. Wooden pallets proved to be a more actively sought out wood waste
product. The data we collected showed that 25 companies used 46,460.5 tons of pallets
per year. That figure averages out to over 1,800 tons per firm per year; the largest pallet
consumer uses 9,625 tons per year, while the smallest uses only 28 tons. Figure 3 shows
that pallets comprise 29 percent of the total wood waste stream reported by the 77
responders to the survey. Of the pallet processors, seven industries generated 11,820 tons
of pallet waste on site.
Seven firms claimed that they had the potential to utilize over 19,500 additional
tons total of pallets per year. Pallets seem to be a versatile wood waste product.
Improving lines of communication could eventually divert all pallet waste from landfills.
Map 3 displays pallet processors in Iowa. Again, the distribution shows that this
industry is being operated throughout the state. The largest pallet processor responding to
the survey is located in northwest Iowa. Another large pallet processor is located in north
central Iowa. The market for pallets in Iowa has much potential for expansion as Map 4
illustrates. Map 4 shows the firms responding to the survey that have unused capacity for
processing pallets. The largest cited additional pallet processing potential was located in
the center of the state.
Brush. The amount of brush or tree trimmings used per year by the survey
respondents was 17,164 tons (ten percent of all wood waste processed). Seven firms
claimed that they used brush in their operations, two of which generated a total of 4,324
20
tons ofbrush on site. Four of the brush processing firms are able to process up to 10,994
additional tons of brush annually (see Map 5). Only one processor claimed an excess
supply ofbrush of500 tons.
Stumps and large tree limbs are another commonly used wood waste resource.
According to the survey results, five companies process 12,400 tons of stumps and tree
trunks per year. Only one firm generated five tons of stump and/or tree limb waste on
site. The potential additional capacity to process stumps and tree trunks was 9,037 tons.
Contrary to that, however, are 11,664 tons of stumps that were listed as excess supply.
Sawdust. Approximately 39,465 tons of sawdust were processed annually by eight
firms (see Map 6). This significant wood waste product comprises 24 percent of the total
cited wood waste stream. Only 7,800 tons of sawdust were produced on site by four.
companies. The potential to process additional sawdust was calculated to be 25,005 tons
with three operations having additional capacity. For comparison, only 2,002 tons of
excess sawdust supply existed, while three firms claimed a total of 14,800 tons of excess
21
Ma11 3. Pallet processm·s
)'" ......... ... _. ..... IIIMU ......... oo ..... fiOWUO '"~""'""' AO.V,WAI<II
• .... u, .. OI1<H<IH
?"~ tt'""" ~· ..... ". .......... IOU .... ~ ®:1 ""'" ..........
• ... fill CU.Y!Otl
........... ...... .., .. -........ ............ ><JoooU>t ""'""' . ...... outlOO . ..... • ~ { IU< ... ,..N .......... '""'UOUI ........
~~ ~· L~ .. .......... 0 ,...-.~u . ...... QOtJNOY .. •
" - ...... - ...... ... coelOM ........
~--.....
'\ ........... ....... '"""' ...... ... ......... ~ fo Q ~ """'"" • ""' ~ .......... . ....... '"""'"" out HOI
-~· .~ .. ........... . .. ·-·l
~ ....
l '1 • ~:~p·
J\ _.-) '"""",;
"7 ... . ., ... . ....... ......... . ...... .. ..... ~ . .... """"'"'uW\..-
~ Q • ... (
.. .o••u•••• ..... '""'"" .... ~. ..., ... . ...... .... "' ... ""'"'""
........
h ""'"""' .. J .... ...... ....... .. ........ !><Oil ••u""'"
10100"' -·"'"' ...... u
~' ) •• • • • ~1 Pallet tons per ye<
• 28- 150 r
• 151 - 500 • 501-1100 N • 1101-2200 • 2201-4000
w E • 4001-9625
~ ~:~~:t~~=~~~·~~ ~:~lation , t=J County Borders ~
Map 4. Potential annual1nocessing ca1Jacity for pallets
r ... , ..... '""""''"" .....
""'"''"
?··~ ...... ~· ~ .........
, ....... ..,.,. .......... .... ......... ., ........... ..., ........
........ cv:···· t· .. ~--- 0
~· ~
.,.,,.,..,D ...... u ....... """"'
l\''" -·· _ .. ..... ._ .. ... .....
1 l J\
"7 "" ..... .......
.. . ........... oo•n -· ........ , ....
''""" ........ 1..0
\.
N
W~E
s
.. -...... . .. '"''"''' ..,, ..... ............ .............
"""'""' u•• ........ 10::1 ""'" '"""'"""
....... "'-'"""
.. ...... '( . ... "" ''""" .......
/ ~~
............. ""'"'" .... I><!O ... UI
.......... ... ..... • ·~· ' • " • ...... ....
.. M"'"
o;!, ~ <:)'
.. . . ... ., ........ . .. c "' ~ .. . ....... .. ...... ....... "" .. ......
Q (1,
--· ~ .. ....... ... ..,.~
""'"~ ....... . ......... ... ...
)
' .. ... ... ..... '\
14 j: CUOOTOOI ...
..:.
' Dii ·-· );1
""'"'" ~OUOM.... .,l _g--
..........
...........
~);----"'
. ....... "' "........ J
"' ~ ~
Pallet tons per year • 100- 120
121 - 1000 1001 -6000
6001 - 10000
County Borders Interstate and US Hwys Cities over 10,000 population
N
w
s
Map 5. Potential annual 11rocessing ca11acity for brush
JYON OSCEOLA OICKHSON EMMET WINNEBAGO KOSSUTH wo '" !.liT CHEll HOWARD WINNESHIEK AUAMAXEE
? s~ux OIRIEN CLAY~ PAlO ALTO IUHCOCK " tO GORDO
C:t FLOYD CHICKASAW r FAYETTE Cl.AVTotl
~ PLYMOUTH CHEROKEE tUENAVISTA POCAHONTAS HUUIIOtDT WRIGHT ''" KUN BUTtER IIREUER
v WEBSTER
~ IUCIWW< DELAWARE DUIIUOUE
~ODIURY L"' SAC CAlHOUN 0 H~ILTON HARDIN GRUNDY .
1-.. lENT ott
\-JON" JACKSON
'"" ~\- CRAWFORD CAAROlt GRHNE "'0'" ST RY UARSHMl
~ <;!> ~ • CUHOH
C£0.&.11:
~"w" SHEllY ~00100 GUlttRIE OAH'-' ''"' JASPER PCMIESHIEP: ~A
{ "' 'V ~ '1 l -- 1;..1;;{ J
7~· '"' AD~ II loiAOISON WARREN loi.O.RION "'""'"' KEOKUK WASHINGTON _ ~ uu=: 0
~ us FNtGOUfRY ADAMS ""'"" .,,, .. wc ... s MOO ROE
I REYONT
'""' TAYlOR Rt4000l0 DE <A R APPANOOSE WAYNE
<~ )
E
a. WAPElLO JEFFERSON
IJ DAVIS VNIIIUREN
LOUISA
HENRY "' DES MOINES
f
"'
~! Brush tons per year
• 648 • 1296 • 3000
• 6000
~County Borders
~ ~~~~~:t~~~~~~.~~O ~~~~lation
N
w
~
Map 6. Sawdust 11rocessing in Iowa
J' " ...... ....... . ....
'"""'" w ........ .... ,, O<I<HIU ~ ...... .......... ..........
;-w• ..... , ... -ti
. ........ ~~···· "''' .....
IC:l ... ,. ""''''-
....... ........
~ l"'''" ........ ... ........ . ......... ........ .. •.••. .. .... .. ..... .. ""'
ll • . ....... w111110
I~ """'""' ......... ........ ,
L" .. ....... 0 ···~··· ~ ..... '""""
~ " ..... " ... _., ....... ~-·
.•. .. _ .. ., , ....... ...... .. ... • ~~ e . ......... .;'!
~ Q ....... • .. ....
.:fiJ \"' ....... -·-·· ...... ·~··· '"" ... .... ...... ~·· ... .....
~----{ ~ .b. .... :-- .'"1 J l It: """ ---:·~ ~ ...--.... . .. ..... - ...... .. ......... ....... .~,. . ....... t-
Q "7 • ..... c
.. . .......... ·-· ..... .. .... ..... .. .....
, ...... .... ''""' ...... ......... ........ '"""
\. }
E
........ ........ . .... lJ.
. .... . ........ ...
~
........ I J
Annual sawdus t processing (tons) • 500-2083 • 2084-3666 • 3667-5250 • 5251 -6833
• 6834-8416 e 8417-10000
~County Borders Interstate and US Hwys f'itin~ '"'"nr 1 n nnn nnnl ,,~finn
demand (lack of supply) for sawdust. This shows that through better communication
among the processors, all of the excess supply could be diverted from landfilling.
Scrapwood. Sawmill scrap also comprised a significant portion of the wood ~aste
stream. Ten firms processed 30,650 tons of this material. Five processors generated
16,095 tons on site. Sawmill scrap makes up 19 per7ent of the total waste stream.
According to the respondents, the potential to process more scrap only adds up to an
additional2,500 tons per year. Participating firms also identified that they had 5,518 tons
of excess sawmill scrap supply; only one firm claimed an excess demand for sawmill scrap
of 3, 000 tons. This shows that most, if not all, of this material has the potential to be
processed somewhere within the state ofiowa.
Seven of the survey respondents reported that manufacturing scrap, particularly
from furniture manufacturing, accounted for 5,872 tons of the wood waste processed per
year. Manufacturing scrap made up less than one percent of the total utilized wood
waste stream reported by the 77 survey respondents. Only one survey respondent
produced any of this type of material within their own operation- 520 tons. There was no
listed excess supply of manufacturing scrap, although three operations combined for a
total of 5,500 tons of excess demand for manufacturing scrap.
Table 4 presents some detailed figures regarding the wood waste stream in Iowa.
Potential additional capacity is the phrase utilized in the survey and we presume this
simply is another term for existing unused capacity.
26
Table 4. Com[!osition of wood waste stream of surver res[!ondents Wood waste type Total tons Tons Potential Amount of Amount of
used/yr generated on additional capacity excess supply excess demand sitelvr (tons/vr) (tons) (tons)
Construction and 1,420 0 50 550 0 demolition Pallets 46,460.5 11,820 19,520 12,465 6,400 Brush 17,164 4,324 10,944 500 0 Stumps/tree 12,400 5 9,036.8 11,664 0 trunks Sawdust 39,465 7,800 25,005 2,002 14,800 Sawmill scrap 30,650 16,095 2,500 5,518 3,000 Manufacturing 5,872 520 150 0 5500 scrap (i.e. furniture) Anv !ll!e material 8,624 3,000 Not Erovided NA NA Totals 162,055.5 43,564 67,205.8 32,699 29,700 Source: 1996JDNR Wood Waste Recycling Survey.
Types of wood accepted Two of the surveys received stated that they processed
any type of wood waste material. These two processors used a total of 8,624 tons and
one claimed an unlimited potential for additional processing of any wood waste type.
The responding companies were asked to indicate the species of wood accepted.
The survey choices were as follows: hardwood with no walnut, hardwood (all types),
softwood, or other. Of the 77 respondents, 47 responded to this question. All types of
wood are accepted by 29 of the processors; 8 take all wood with the exception of walnut;
three accept only pallets; three accept only hardwood; the rest may take only softwood, or
particle board, along with two that take unfinished C &D wood and bundled brush.
Service area of processors. Wood waste recyclers were asked what areas of the
state they accepted wood waste from. Many of the processors are municipal governments
or regional solid waste agencies that accept waste only from within their own service area.
However, of the 41 who responded to this question, 18 would accept waste from
27
anywhere in the state. When asked how far they would travel to pick up a wood waste
product, 23 recyclers were willing to travel to pick up wood waste. The distance they
would travel to pick up wood waste ranged from 50 miles to 500 miles. Most companies
would only travel great distances for a premium product such as pallets or used lumber.
The amount of wood waste accepted from outside the state oflowa was figured to be
25,103 tons according to the survey. A few industries are located near the state borders
or in nearby states. Most firms, especially public operations, will accept wood waste only
from within their particular region of the state.
Forms accepted. The various forms of wood waste accepted by the processors
varied greatly. Below is a list of various forms of wood waste accepted:
• Pallets • Pallets and boards • Sawdust and wood chips • Stumps, tree sections, yard trimmings and brush • Wood scraps • Unprocessed clean wood • Clean and dry hardwood bark • Hogwood
Of the inputs listed above, pallets, usable lumber, and wood chips were the most
widely accepted wood waste forms. Usable lumber is referred to as waste because in
many cases, even usable lumber scraps will reach the landfills oflowa. Many processors
added the additional requirement of accepting only clean wood waste, containing no
foreign materials or chemicals.
Table 5 below denotes the total tons of wood waste used annually to produce
various products. The greatest amount of wood waste was used for mulch production.
Since pallets were not included in the original survey questions, we feel that the figure
28
listed below for pallets may be underestimating the actual figure. On the original survey,
processors· of pallets had to write the pallet figures in the category other. No wood waste
was reportedly used for charcoal, presslog, or fuel pellet production.
Table 5. Uses of wood waste in Iowa Product Animal bedding
'Mulch Composting Incineration for heat recovery Incineration for electricity generation Paper Pressboard Pallets Play ground underlayment Remanufactured doors Building forms Total
Tons of wood waste used for product 34,339 42,945 17,692 32,579 11,664 5,671 6,888 20,725 375 2,187 300 175,365
Source: 19.96 Iowa DNR Wood Waste Survey.
End uses. The final products or end uses of wood waste are as varied as the
wood waste material that is used to produce these marketable products. The figures here
may not match exactly with table 4 due to the fact that wood waste changes forms during
processing. For example, table 4 shows that 46,460.5 tons of pallets were accepted
annually. However, table 5 shows that there were 20,725 tons of wood waste used
annually to produce pallets. In this case, much of the pallet waste not satisfactory for
reuse as pallets ends up in the form of mulch, animal bedding, or sawdust.
Most of the total amount of wood waste material was used for a secondary usable
product, although over 44,000 tons were being processed for incinerated generate heat or
electricity (see Map 8). Table 6 below lists various wood waste products that are sold or
given away by operations around the state.
29
Animal bedding production comprises the most frequently distributed wood waste product
(see Map 7). Due to the large number of livestock operations throughout the state, the
production of animal bedding should remain a viable market for wood waste products.
Also, over 37,000 tons of compost are distributed annually by the responding companies;
mulch production tops the rest of the list (see Table 6). Most of these materials are not
sold by the ton, but in much smaller units (refer to Table 4). The large range in prices for
animal bedding and mulch seen in table 6 are due to two companies with very specialized
products. The range of prices charged for mulch and animal bedding without the two
specialized companies is about $0 to $15 per cubic yard or ton.
Table 6. Amount of wood waste products sold annually Product Tons sold annuallv Prices of product listed Animal bedding 39,482 free-$11/CY; $5-$100/ton Compost 37,410 $5-$19/ton; $7-$10/CY Mulch 24,086 free-$15/CY; $10-$200/ton Pallets 9,538 $1.25-6.50/pallet Biomass fuel 5,000 $21.50/ton Wood chips 2,600 $17.75/ton Paper 2,000 $11/CY Building forms 94,000 SQ IT $2.70/SQ IT
Avg. Price\Ton $18.24 $11.85 $20.65
Source: 1996 Iowa DNR Wood Waste Survey. Prices based on 19 of the 77 responses.
An important reason for some of the discrepancies between tables 5 and 6 derives
from the respondents not replying to the survey in full. More specifically, some of the
private firms did not provide figures in regard to annual sales. In addition, the question on
the survey asked for the amount of product sold, therefore, the respondents that do not
charge for the wood waste products they process may not have responded to this
question.
30
Map 7. Animal bedding 1n·oduction in Iowa
~r J osceotA 1 OICI<rlSOH 1 EMMH
I<OSSUTH Wlt•tEBMD I w'l">~ 1 Mllc:ttnt 1 1wwAAo Alln.I-'I<EE
P>.l.O "l TO ?' I OBRIEN
Q.AY -ll IWICOCII
BUTLER tJIIEI.tER
l mro~ ~ I FtOYO
\._.I,_ I . , I CHEROI<H I BUENA VISTA I POCAHONTAS I ltUMBOlOI I 'MII!JIH
V""' ..., ...,- (jnuouH C"o L H.o\Ml TON I l,tlARDIN
CI11CIIASAW
~ A ~ r~ """" ~ ~"~~ I «e>WAA' I ''""'"'
I fAYETTE .... \
'~"' C~A.WI'ORO
IAM,O, BENTON JONES JO.CKSON
~--~~~~ . .. "" V CtiiHON
.lo'<sPER PQWfSHEK IOWA
-"" u~~"'"' ••••~ •~•A
l.tAIIION
e I I""'" w""'/; fus
l.tOUROE JEffERSON I HENRY ~~· UliiOtl aAA' LUCAS
DES IIIDINES
TAYlOR I!IWGOLO DECAl W,O,ytlf I.&I'PAIIOOSE I O.O.VIS I VNI BUllEN
•
Animal bedding production (tons) • 1 - 1800
N • 1801 - 3600 • 3601-5400
w E • 5401 -7200
• 7201 -9000
s ~ ~~~~~~~~~~.~~0 ~~~~lation
1\'Hlll tl. woon waste iH'OCt;S.:i~CU annually tor· heat or· electricity genm·ation.
~ .. -...~ ..... ...-··· ..... """"'" ............
"'"'""" ..... u. ~-~ .......
~· {!
1&1 .. 0<.01 .... ,_, !"'"'"" .......... . ............ '"'""'""""'
.. u .....
0 ........ oooouo• L~ ... ·-~
..... 01•' ~- .......... c;.•oou .......
':!! f ........... ..,., ... ,, ... ..... .... ........ 001 .......
{ ::!":' l _l ~ ~'"'· J Lt
....... .. .•...
i: ... ...
Q
....... ........... , ..... ~ ... (
.... uo..o OI<AIUI ........ . ... ........
~ )
N
W*E s
..... • ..... u """'"" ............ OLUMO .. I
•
I """ ""[SJ fLO TO tMIC ... IO"'
"-"'"" .......
~ ,.., .... ....... • ... ...
1/ .......... II<JIUO\AI llitt
.............
• ..... , .. OOVOC>Y
1 1-.. ........ ........ ' - ....... , ... i' . ......... • ~ ......... Q
• .. crooo d) • I":Y'--. .. -~· ....... '"""~u
.... • "\'~
11\IIU.l ...
I 101!<>10-JK ............. ~
~··· ··~··"' .......
• . ..... lUtol . ....... .. ........ .. ........ ~ ....
/) ......... .. ......... ........... .... ... .. .....
... ~
• •
~
I
Woodwa: • 10-
• 119: - ........ ~
-
processed for heat (tons) 91 2373 3555 4736 5918 e 5919-7100
Wood waste processed for electricity (tons) • 3264 • 8400 ~County Borders
~ ~iW~!~~~~~~g.~~o~~~~tation
Findings • Animal bedding, compost, and mulCh were the end uses most frequently produced
from wood waste. • Over 39,000 tons of wood are currently used for heat or electricity production. • At least ten different wood waste uses were cited. • There is much that can be done to improve communication across the state simply by
connecting the wood waste generators with the processors. • Clean, untreated wood is preferred to other types of wood such as chemically tainted
or pressure treated wood. • Over one-third of the respondents would accept any type of wood waste. • Pallets and sawdust comprise 53 percent of the wood waste stream, having an excess
demand of almost 20,000 tons or one-seventh of the total wood waste currently processed. (Figure 4, Table 4)
• There is twice as much wood waste being used now as there was being in used in 1993 according to the figures presented in UNI study, Closing the Loop on Wood Waste, which analyzed only wood used internally by generators.
NATIONAL WOOD WASTE RECYCLING MARKET
The national market for recycling wood waste is fairly young and scattered across
the nation. The National Wood Recycling Directory produced by the American Forest
Service & Paper Association surveyed 600 processors of wood waste nationwide and
found that wood waste processors were geographically dispersed. North Carolina
reported the most processors with 15 percent of the total, while California, Maryland, and
Oregon accounted for another 25 percent of the total processors (Darrow, 1996). This
study also concluded that wood recycling activity appears to be on the threshold of a
major expansion (Darrow, 1996).
Wood waste processors accept a variety of material and produce a variety of end
products. The American Forest Service & Paper Association report also discussed the
types of material accepted by wood waste processors nationwide. The table below
summarizes the percentage of wood waste processors that accept and handle each type of
33
material. The report found that pallets were the most widely accepted and handled wood
waste material, with more than two-thirds of all the processors accepting them.
Table 7. Percent of national processors handling wood waste material by type Type ofMaterial Percent of Total Processors
Wood Pallets 66
Brush Trimmings 55
Construction Cutoffs
Tree Residue
Demolition Scrap
Engineered Wood
49 42 31
23
Preservative-treated Wood 8
Source: National Wood Recycling Directory: Darrow, 1996.
The most common wood waste end use product is wood chips and mulch for
various applications. The wood chips are used in landscaping, trail building, playground
underlayment, and even as flavor chips for use in barbecues. Another popular use for
wood chips is animal bedding because it is a cleaner, more absorbent material.
Composting operators have also found wood chips to be a good additive to their compost
to improve the product and composting process.
There are many processors reusing wood waste in various ways to make new value
added products. As discussed previously, wooden pallets are the most widely processed
in this way. The pallets are refurbished for reuse as pallets or dismantled to provide wood
for products such as furniture, toys, or firewood. Some processors are also recovering
wood fiber for use in medium density fiberboard or particleboard. Another end use
product for wood waste is in producing wood pellets or pressed cubes for use as a fuel
source.
34
CASE STUDIES
Wood waste operations nationwide
There are many different and innovative wood waste diversion operations that
have been implemented by the public and private sectors. The literature provides some
examples of these wood waste operations from across the nation. Two examples worth
noting are a pilot curbside collection program in Aberdeen, Maryland and a city-wide
drop-off site in Anniston, Alabama. The pilot project was both a service to the residents
. of the City of Aberdeen and a research opportunity to quantify the types and amounts of
wood waste set out on the curb. The city also intended the project to recover a portion of
the lumber and fabricate it into usable products such as birdhouses, bat houses, and
compost bins.
The one-time curbside collection was advertised to encourage participation, but
also as an attempt to control the quantity of setouts. The participants were counted and
the wood waste piles were estimated during the collection. The collection crews directed
the 'usable' wood into a separate truck that could be used to fabricate the birdhouses and
compost bins. Clean wood was favored in the separation of 'usable' wood, although good
pieces of pressure treated lumber were also salvaged.
Roughly one out of eight households (12.6 percent) participated in the pilot
curbside collection project with an average setout of 174 pounds (Litke, 1996). Of the
wood collected, pressure treated lumber was the largest contributor at 35 percent, while
the quantity of clean wood totaled 16 percent (Litke, 1996). The Aberdeen pilot project
collected a total of39 tons of scrap wood and claimed 3.47 tons of that for refabrication
35
(Litke, 1996). As a result of the curbside collection pilot project, the City of Aberdeen
implemented an annual scrap lumber collection program to recover more usable wood
(Litke, 1996).
City of Anniston case study. The City of Anniston in eastern Alabama has
developed a successful program to recycle wood waste. A wa.Ste audit in 1992 revealed
that approximately 20 percent of Anniston's waste stream consisted of wood (BioCycle
I 995). The city targeted wood waste as a material to be diverted from the landfill and
developed a program to· address it. The City of Anniston developed a site where all wood
and yard trimmings collected by the city or dropped off by residents would be accepted,
This operation chips the wood waste to produce wood chips, mixed chips, and compost.
Wood chips consist of tree residue while mixed chips include both tree residue and
processed wood. In 1993, the operation produced 949 tons of wood chips, 590 tons of
mixed chips, and 258 tons of compost (BioCycle 1995). Most of the chips are sold to
individuals or local landscaping companies. The local golf courses and the city Park and
Recreation Department have also been major users of the chips. The operators of the
wood waste recycling program in Anniston cite their competitive pricing as a key to their
success. They charge a tipping fee of $12.50 compared to $22 at the landfill. This has
allowed them to divert large amounts of material without enacting any new ordinances or
regulations. To date, the program in Anniston has avoided expenditures on landfill tipping
fees of over $120,000 and has generated over $50,000 in revenue.
36
Wood waste operations statewide
There are also several examples of wood waste recycling programs in Iowa that
are working to divert wood from landfills. For example, Carroll County, Iowa
implemented a wood waste grinding program to help them meet the state's 25 percent
waste reduction goal. Carroll County received a Landfill Alternatives Financial Assistance
Program (LAF AP) grant from the IDNR and purchased the equipment needed to grind
wood waste into mulch. They accept clean and separated loads of wood at $20 per ton
compared to the $34.75 per ton tipping fee charged at the local landfill (Steuteville, 1996).
The recycling operation separates the wood waste into tree residuals or pallets and
dimensional lumber to produce two kinds of mulch. The tree residuals are ground and
mixed with leaves to produce a compostable mix mulch, while the lumber is ground to
produce a more stable mulch. The county sells both kinds of mulch for $20 per ton and
has found that they have difficulty producing enough to satisfY demand (Steuteville,
1996).
Another example of wood waste recycling programs in Iowa comes from
Oskaloosa, Iowa. B&B Bedding of Oskaloosa is a business processing wood waste from
cabinet and window manufacturers and from used pallet processors. They receive about
50,000 tons per year of wood waste and grind it to produce animal bedding. The
company received a LAFAP grant from the IDNR to expand their processing and bagging
operations. The company continues to expand due to growing markets (Steuteville,
1996).
37
A third example of wood waste recycling in the state comes from Riverside, Iowa.
Riverside Pallets of Riverside is a used pallet processing company. They collect and
rebuild wood pallets for reuse and grind the remaining wood waste for mulch and animal
bedding. A grant from the IDNR Landfill Alternatives Grant Program helped the
company to purchase the tub grinder that is essential to their operation (Ryan, 1994).
About nine million pallets are collected, dismantled, and rebuilt to be sold as used pallets.
Riverside Pallets sells used pallets for considerably less then the price charged for new
pallets. The wood that is damaged beyond reuse is ground in the tub grinder to produce
wood chips used for mulch or animal bedding. Riverside Pallets currently sells the wood
chips for $15 per truck load and often have far more demand than supply.
RECOMMENDATIONS- POTENTIAL WAYS TO UTILIZE WOOD WASTE IN IOWA
Introduction
As part of the creation of this project, the IDNR requested that they be given some
recommendations for the use and disposal of wood waste in Iowa. These
recommendations are partially based on the survey results and the case studies produced in
the first two sections of this paper. The recommendations are also partially based on
creative thinking and the literature review of the wood waste field. For this reason, many
of the ideas in this section lack the necessary economic analysis that any prudent program
would require before initiation. The ideas, therefore, are intended to give the IDNR a
place to start as it begins to develop the wood waste utilization market in Iowa.
38
With recent increases in technological capabilities and the desire to divert wood
waste from landfills, there are many potential methods of wood waste utilization. Iowa,
being a sparsely populated state, lacks the concentrated wood waste supply needed to
make most existing disposal methods feasible. The capital costs and the lack of consistent
supply of wood waste make many potential projects very difficult.
The current uses of wood waste in Iowa are generally limited to basic pallet
recycling and wood chipping facilities that provide mulch, animal bedding and other wood
products. There is potential for an expansion of the current wood waste utilization
techniques and the creation of new methods of disposal. This section of the paper will
discuss the possibilities for expansion of current wood waste utilization techniques and
creation of new methods of utilization.
Expansion of current technologies
Pallet Industry. Currently in Iowa, there are 15 wood waste processors who are
processing old pallets to construct and sell new ones. (See Map 3). This type of business
is very labor intensive and requires a lot of hard work to be successful. Some of the larger
operations, such as Riverside Pallets in Riverside, Iowa, have slowly expanded their
business through gradually building markets and business connections. Riverside Pallets
recently began receiving orders for pallets from California and New York because of the
low price at which they can sell their pallets. The owners of Riverside Pallets say that they
have a difficult time filling all of the orders they receive for pallets each year. They also
commented that the pallet recycling market has great potential in Iowa and that there is
39
room for expansion into the business for those people who are willing to invest the time
and great labor involved. (John Hahn, Riverside Pallets, Inc.)
Essential to the success of a large pallet recycling business is an on-site wood
chipper because it allows for a diversification of the business. Such a wood chipper allows
for diverting the wood that would otherwise be waste destined for the landfill, yet the
capital costs can be exorbitantly high with good tub grinders ranging in price from
$100,000-$250,000 (Dave Hogan, Bluestem Waste Management Facility). 1 Riverside
Pallets, with the help of a $150,000 Landfill Alternatives Financial Assistance Program
(LAF AP) grant from the Iowa Department ofNatural Resources, was able to purchase
their wood chipper for use on-site to grind excess wood. (Ryan, 1995). Andrew Pallet
Co. was able to do the same with a $100,000 LAFAP grant which allows them to produce
5,000 tons of usable mulch and animal bedding from the wood waste each year instead of
landfilling it. This allows the company to sell or give away their unwanted wood and
avoid the high tipping fees (ranging from $27-40/ton) associated with landfill disposal.2
Therefore, the first recommendation is the expansion of the LAFAP grant program to
allow other pallet recycling firms to get established in this growing market.
Also, ifthere were a readily available market nearby to purchase the wood chips
for boiler fuel or mulch, the pallet recycler would not be forced to give away such a large
'·The price for a smaller chipper, such as the ones used by many municipalities for their park maintenance projects, range in price from $6,000- $20,000. These smaller chippers are best used for smaller logs and may not have the grinding capabilities required for a larger wood waste processor. 2 Though there may already exist a market for mulch and bedding, that demand is usually satisfied by the bags which can be purchased at Kman. The same people who buy it by the bag are not the same people who buy it directly by the truckload from the wood waste processor. There is not enough consistent demand for mulch or animal bedding from the processor to finance the purchase of a bagger to bag the mulch and bedding. This most likely can be attributed to the lack of communication between the wood waste processor and the wood waste market.
40
portion of their shredded wood and could profit from the excess chips. If there was a
consistent demand for the shredded wood, the pallet recycler would be able to charge a
more appropriate price for the waste (currently ranging from $0-15 per ton) and begin to
see a profit which might pay for the cost of their equipment. Later proposals will
demonstrate how effective communication and restructuring of current technologies could
lead to the creation of such a consistent demand for wood chips.
Wood Waste as a Boiler Fuel. In January 1995, M.L. Smith Environmental, Inc.
published a Study of Processing and Utilizing Urban Wood Waste and Pallets for Fuel in
the State ofiowa (hereinafter MLSE study). This 150 page study outlines the possibilities
for using Iowa's wood waste as an industrial fuel in the nine largest counties in Iowa. The
MLSE study concluded that it would be very feasible, and in fact profitable, to convert
existing industrial boilers to partial burners of wood waste.
The MLSE study begins by outlining the four major categories of wood waste and
their potential for use as a fuel. The four categories of such waste are:
Category 1: Brush and tree trimmings and urban tree removal Category 2: Mixed municipal solid waste Category 3: Manufacturing solid waste Category 4: Construction and demolition debris (C&D waste)
These categories of wood waste generate approximately 12,600 tons per 100,000
people per year in Iowa which amounts to 157,098 tons of wood waste generated in the
nine largest counties (MLSE, 1995). The energy content for Iowa's wood waste is
expected to average about 7,100 BTU/Ib for non-forestry and 4,500 BTU/Ib for forestry
wood and is projected to be 4.5 trillion BTU/year for all oflowa (MLSE, 1995). This
41
translates into approximately 1.3 percent of the energy produced by coal in Iowa (l\.1LSE,
1995).
These numbers indicate that a lot of money could be saved by industries that bum
coal in their boilers to heat their facilities while at the same time saving the wood from
being landfilled. Please refer to Appendix B for a complete detailing of the cost analysis
of using wood waste as a boiler fuel. There are, however, barriers to the recovery of
wood waste which inhibit its full utilization as an industrial fuel. The l\.1LSE study lists ten
reasons for the relatively small amounts of recovery:
1. Mixing of wood waste with other wastes 2. Lack offacilities and programs to process and remove C&D waste 3. Lack of markets and/or presence of wood waste contaminants 4. Lack of availability of urban wood in large supplies and in a form which
will encourage market development and use 5. Costs of finely sizing or processing wood into useful end products 6. Lack of firm wood fuel markets and industry policies favoring other fuels 7. Present low cost of other fuels such as coal 8. Relatively low landfill tipping fees ofabout $25/ton in Iowa 9. Costs of gathering and transporting urban wood to the processor I 0. Costs of transporting wood fuel to wood markets- the combination oflight
payloads and low heat value limits the economical haul distance to market
One of the major concerns when considering the use of wood as a fuel is its
relatively low BTU value mentioned as number ten on the list above. This BTU value,
demonstrated in Table 9, shows that wood can be comparable to coal in BTU value per
pound.
Table 8. Range of heat values for different industrial fuels Fuel TYPe Fuel Heat Value Range Wood 3,900- 8,500 Btu/lb Oil 140,000-150,000 Btu/gal Natural Gas 900-1300 Btu/cubic foot Coal 7,000 -14,000 Btu/lb Source: MLSE Report, p.59, Jan 1995
42
One thing that must also be considered when examining the table of heat value is
the cost of each fuel type. One factor in the profitability of wood waste is the avoided
tipping associated with landfilling the waste. This avoided cost may partially reduce the
cost of obtaining the necessary quantities of wood waste. The MLSE report assumes that
there is no cost for the wood fuel at the point of use including transportation costs
(MLSE, 1995). The tables in Appendix B detail the proximity of possible boilers to the
nine largest counties. The MLSE report concludes that wood waste fuel can be a
profitable endeavor even with the lower BTU value of wood. (See Appendix B tables of
costs and revenues).
The MLSE study indicates that there is a good potential for the use of wood waste
as a fuel in industrial boilers in Iowa. The study proposes use of such wood in an existing
150,000 lblhour coal fired combuster which could be retrofitted to accommodate the co
firing of wood. This proposal was the most cost efficient and effective way to convert
wood waste to fuel because there are fewer capital costs involved in mixing the wood with
coal than if a stand-alone wood waste combuster were created. In Appendix B attached
to the end of this report are copies of the entire costs and revenue projected by the MLSE
study. The study anticipates the use of 18,400 tons of wood waste per year per facility.
This means one such facility would increase use of wood waste by 15 percent and three
facilities would increase use by 45 percent. The cost savings projected for the retrofitted
boiler is approximately $8.87/ton. This projected cost savings stems from the $2.00 per
million BTU avoided cost of not using coal as the boiler fuel. (MLSE, 1995) This
43
assumes that the wood fuel is available at the F.O.B. point of use at no cost (MLSE,
1995). The study makes the point that:
To ·insure continued availability of wood residue for wood energy projects and tip fee income (if this is agreed upon) the wood must be clearly a part of the waste disposal stream and the business arrangement must be a win, win condition for all parties participating. (MLSE, 1995, p.115).
This type of win/win solution is possible if the wood waste generators are willing
to pay a portion of the avoided tipping fee to the wood waste processor, and the wood
waste processor is able to sell the fuel chips to the owners of the boilers at a market price
cheaper per BTU than coal. It must also be remembered at this point that much of the
current chipped wood which is used for bedding or mulch is sold at a very cheap rate such
as $15 per truck load at Riverside Pallets.
In order to begin this process in the most ·efficient manner, it is best to target the
nine largest counties as was done in the MLSE report. By targeting these areas, it is
possible to create some type of organization between the wood waste processors in order
to guarantee a consistent supply of wood waste to the boiler owners. A community drop-
off or annual collection of wood waste in each of these nine counties would be ideal for
using wood waste as a fuel. The processors could either share the supply of the wood
waste collected with the wood with the boiler operators or sell it to them at a reduced
rate. This could lead to a much larger public outreach program for the diversion of wood
waste.
Tables 4.11-1, 4.11-2 and 4.11-3 from the MLSE report (listed in Appendix B)
name all of the industries in Iowa which have coal-fired boilers that have the potential to
44
be converted to partial wood waste users. This list of industries gives the State a starting
point to target businesses and encourage the use of wood waste as an industrial fuel.
Notably, there are three state-owned facilities, Iowa State University in Ames, the
University oflowa in Iowa City, and the University ofNorthem Iowa in Cedar Falls which
are on this list and represent a good starting place for conversion to wood waste as a fuel.
These three facilities alone could increase the use of wood waste 45 percent per year using
the 18,400 tons per year figure.
In 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency released a study titled,
Environmental and Technological Analysis of the Use of Surolus Wood as an Industrial
Fuel. This study listed five non-technical barriers to the use of wood waste as an industrial
fuel. They include:
1. Jack of an established supply/market infrastruCture 2. competition among alternative users of wood waste (limits total supply) 3. uncertainty concerning the future supply of wood 4. inconvenience of wood as a fuel compared with gas or oil 5. capital investment required for conversion of facilities to use of wood as a fuel
The non-economic barriers, which exist in Iowa as well as the rest of the country, ·
can be corrected with the creation of proper communication channels. There are 53 wood
waste processors in Iowa who responded to our survey. These processors are sufficiently
spread throughout the state so that they could pick up wood or supply wood to just about
any region. (See Map 1). If industries with the capability to use wood waste as a fuel
were aware of its availability or its cheap price, they would be more likely to consider the
conversion.
45
. With the creation of the database that was started with this study, the information
will be more readily available to the industrial sector. It is the responsibility of the
Department ofNatural Resources and the State oflowa to complete the process of
information gathering and begin the dissemination of this information. Once completed,
there would be a database that showed all wood waste processors, all wood waste
generators as well as possible markets or industries which consume wood waste. With
this increased availability of information, industry owners will have a chance to see first
hand the convenience and feasibility of conversion of industrial boilers to partial wood
waste burn.ers.
The availability of this information will not be sufficient to initiate industry
conversion to partial use of wood waste as a fueL There must be some case study
examples available for examination which these industries can look to for feasibility
analysis. In order to initiate the use of wood waste as a fuel, the state government should
look to its state-ov:ned facilities to lead the way. As was mentioned in the discussion of
the :MLSE report, the state owns at least three facilities which have the potential to
partially convert their boilers to use of wood waste as a fueL Either through some
administrative mandate or a state law similar to the one which requires state-owned
vehicles to use ethanol gasoline, the State oflowa should strongly encourage its three
universities which have boiler capabilities to begin the switch to partial wood waste use.
By leading the conversion to use of wood waste as a fuel, the State oflowa not only gives
its wood waste processors the beginning of a consistent demand for wood waste, but it
also demonstrates the ease and success which can be experienced by a conversion to wood
46
waste. This type of mandate has the potential to create a state-wide conversion to use of
wood waste as a fuel to supplement use of coal. Industries would be more likely to
convert to wood waste if they were to see a profitable demonstration of the possibilities.
Use of wood waste for road creation and landscaping. The State of Iowa has the
opportunity in another manner to take the lead in use of wood waste. The Iowa
Department of Transportation (IDOT) has an entire road system throughout the state
which needs constant repair and landscaping using various mulch products. The IDOT
uses mulch for roadside development projects such as ditch landscaping and other road
building activities (Kermit Wilson, Iowa Department of Transportation). The purchase of
this mulch is not regulated by the IDOT for any of its roadside projects. When the IDOT
purchases mulch, it does so from the lowest bidder, whether or not that company resides
in Iowa. For projects done by independent contractors, the purchase of the mulch is left
solely to the discretion of the contractor.
If the IDOT were to make it a provision in its independent contracts and require
from its own purchasers that the mulch that is purchased for projects is wood waste mulch
which was generated in Iowa, then the government could go a long way towards creating
a consistent demand for wood waste. The use of recycled wood chips as bedding around
trees or on state park trails and roadways is a good way for the State to demonstrate its
commitment to the use of recycled wood. With a few road signs or radio advertisements,
the citizens oflowa can take notice of the State's efforts every time they use Iowa's
roads. Also, this would encourage the citizens oflowa to seek out and purchase recycled
wood for their own projects.
47
In addition, there is one final method of disposal of wood waste which the State of
Iowa can begin to examine for feasibility. This method involves using a chunker to create
chunkwood to surface low volume roads such as Level B Service roads. This process,
which was invented by the Houghton Michigan Forest Service and tested by the USDA
Forest Service, has proven to be a good alternative surface for low volume roads (Public
Works, 1988). The major advantage that chunkwood has over other surfacing materials is
its unit weight which is 100 lb/cu.ft lower than either sand or gravel. This is especially
important for roads in terrain possessing weak roadbed soils such as uniform sands,
saturated silts and clays. The idea was initially created as a way to surface remote roads in
national parks where gravel surfacing was not readily available (Jim Madsen, Project
Coordinator, Houghton Forest Services). Yet this idea seems just as feasible in rural Iowa
where low volume roads exist, as does the desire to utilize Iowa's wood waste.
In 1988, the Forest Service built 2.5 miles of roads in Chequamegon National
Forest out of chunkwood material for testing purposes. The road surface withstood tests
by a 50,000 pound vehicle examining its lateral shoving, stiffuess, roadrutting and general
settlement (Forest Service Report, Department of Agriculture, 1991). The wood used and
processed by the woodchunker can be any type of wood, hard or soft and costs about
$2.3 5 per cubic yard to process and use on-site. It is processed from a woodchunker
which can take whole trees and reduce them to pieces ranging from 1/4 inches to 6 inches
(Public Works, 1988). This range of sizes allows the chunkwood to be interwoven which
provides a high-frictional strength. If the !DOT were to invest in such a chunker,
48
currently in the developmental stages3, the processed wood could be a likely candidate for
low volume roads.
Though an actual woodchunker would be required to utilize wood as a road
surfacing material, it would not be required to line trails and paths in Iowa's state parks.
The same mulch or surfacing materials that are placed along trees for landscaping, may
make a valuable resource for creating trails in Iowa's parks. This, like the other proposals
involving state agencies, would create a consistent demand which processors could rely on
in order to begin charging a profitable rate for disposal of their processed wood.
As was mentioned at the beginning of this section, such new uses of wood waste
have not been completely developed and the economic feasibility has not yet been
computed. These remain simple recommendations to the IDNR as potential methods the
State may use to begin diverting larger portions of its wood waste from landfills.
3The Canadian fum Cazes & Heppner Forest Services Limited is currently looking into the commercial marketing of a woodchunker. As this is a relatively new idea, only prototype chunkers, such as the one created in Houghton. Michigan. can be relied on for feasibility data. The contact person at that company in Canada for questions regarding the wood chunker is Lyle Cazes at (604) 855-0678. For questions about the process of using chunkwood as a road surface material, the contact person is Jim Madsen. Project Coordinator, at (906) 482-6303.
49
CONCLUSIONS
The state oflowa currently has an undeveloped market for handling wood waste.
The lack of information, communication and market certainty all work to prevent this
market from expanding. The technology is available as is the desire to divert wood waste
from landfills. What is required at this stage is some intervention by state government
organizations. Through greater control over the types of wood waste used by the IDOT
for roadways and landscaping as well as use of wood chips as a boiler fuel, the State of
Iowa can take the lead and move the wood waste market to the next level. The wood
waste market can begin to be consistent, manageable and profitable while at the same time
diverting valuable wood from the state's landfills.
50
SOURCES CITED
Arola, Roger A, et al., "Forest Roads Built With Chunkwood," Chunk:wood: Production. Characterization and Utilization, Department of Agriculture, 1991.
BioCycle. "Wood Recycling at Municipal Centers." October 1995. p.38-39.
Badger, Phillip C., "End User Requirements: Marketing Wood Waste For Fuel," BioCycle, January 1995, vol. 36, no.1, p.71-74.
Clayson, Dr. Dennis E., et al., "Closing the Loop on Wood Waste: Reuse Applications and Market Potential," report prepared for Project Consultants from the Iowa Waste Reduction Center, June 30, 1993.
Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center. Regional Planning User Guide: Rural Solid Waste Management, Chapter 4.
Darrow, Carl. "Counting on Wood Recovery." Resource Recycling. February. 1996. Vol. 15,No. 2, pp. 69-70.
Hall, E.H., et al, "Environmental and Technological Analysis of the Use of Surplus Wood as an Industrial Fuel," Interagency Energy/ Environment R&D Program Report, June 1980.
Litke, Jim. "Recovering Scrap Lumber at Curbside." BioCycle. March 1996. pp. 33-34.
MLSE & Associates, "Study of Processing and Utilizing Urban Wood Waste and Pallets For Fuel in the State oflowa," prepared for: Council of Great Lakes Governors, January 1995.
Ryan, Jennifer. "Pallet Waste Grinds to a Halt." Iowa Conservationist. May/June 1994. pp. 44-46.
Shook, Larry, "Using Chunkwood to Build Low Volume Roads," Public Works, Vol, 119, no. 10, September 1988, p.I05-106.
Steuteville, Robert. "Wood Diversion Strategies ... BioCycle. January 1996. pp. 37-39.
Urban Waste Wood Utilization, Proceedings of a Conference on Alternatives to Urban Waste Wood Disposal, March 26-28, Charleston, South Carolina.
51
APPENDIX A
WOOD WASTE SURVEY Please fax the completed survey to (319) 335-3330 ATIN: Stu Thmer or mail to Wood Waste Study, Attn: Stu Turner, Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning, 347 Jesup Ball, Iowa City, IA 52242-1316.
Your Name:-=---:--;;------------- Company Name:-----------Wood Waste Contact Person: Title:---------------.:..
Addr~s: ______________ ~--~----------~~~-------------------------City: ---------County:-------- Zip Code::--------------Phone: Fax: E-mail Addr~s:
Do you repr~ent a 0 public 0 private 0 nonprofit organization?
!. Does your operation currently use wood waste? 0 Yes (go to question 2) ONe
a .. IfNo, have you considered doing so? OY~ ONe
b. What do you perceive as the barriers to your operation using wood waste? (check all that apply) 0 Lack of consistent supply 0 Contamination 0 Machinery to proc~ wood waste 0 Transportation 0 Your manufacturing proc~s 0 Price ofreceivinglproc~sing waste
OOther ____ ~-~-~:--~--------------------Suggested recommendations far reducing barriers _____________________ _ PLEASE GO TO QUESTION #10
2. IfY~. please indicate the typ~. amounts (tons per year), and potential capacity of wood waste used and any cases of excess supply or shortage of supply (indicate all that apply). Please provide unit of measurement if not in tons.
Total Tons Tons Generated Potential Additional Amount oC Amount or Type Used/Year on Site!Ycar Capacity (Tons/Year) Excess Supply El:cess Demand construction ano aemout10n pallets brush stumps/tree trunks sawdust saw mill scrap manufacturin~ scrap(i.e. fumiture)
3. Please indicate the species of wood you accept 0 hardwood (no walnut) 0 hardwood (all typ~) Osoftwood Oother _____________________________________ _
4. What area(s) ofthe state wiU you accept wood waste from?-----,------'--------a. How many ntiles are you willing to travel to collect wood waste? ____ ntiles (Put 0 if materials must be delivered)
5. Please indicate the form in which you accept the wood wast~
0 sawdust 0 wood chips- please indicate required size ------------------Ooilier ______________________________________________________________ ___
6. Do~ your company have any other requirements for accepting wood wast~ (speci~ type, contamination level, etc)? Please d~cribe in detail:
7. How much wood waste are you currently using for the following applications? Indicate annual quaotities and unit of measurement (i.e. cubic yards, tons, lbs, etc.) for each applicable activity.
0 animal bedding production amount unit measurement 0 mulch production amount unit measurement 0 composting amount unit measurement 0 incineration for heat recovery amount unit measurement 0 incineration for electricity generation amount unit measurement 0 fuel pellet production amount unit measurement 0 pr~s log production amount unit measurement 0 charcoal amount unit measurement 0 paper production amount unit measurement 0 pressboard production amount unit measurement ~ ~. \, ~ ~ amcunt unit me:1surement
... -~-· . "'.· ........ -~ ... _. •. saw]' w 8. Do you pay for the wood w.1Stc you receive?
0 Yes. we payS amount per ___ (unit ofme:J.Surcme:nt). C1 No, we: charge$ amount per (Wlit ofmCllSure:me:nt). CJ We: do not pay or ch:lrge: for wood waste.
9. Please identifY by company name your two biggest sources of wood waste, !. ___________________________________________________ __
2-------------------------------------------------------10. What is the amount of wood waste you receive from sources outside oflowa?
____ amount unit of measurement
1LHow many employees do you have?
Full-time-------Part-time------ Average hours worked per week by part-time employees. ______ _
12 What is the average hourly rate for your hourly employees? Full-time Part-time, _____ _
13, Do you have any salaried employees? 0 Yes If yes, how many? 0 No
14. What is the salary range for salaried employees? $ to /year
15, What is your annual gross sales? $ /year
16, How much do you sell annually of the following products? Please indicate amount and unit of measurement
0 animal bedding amount unit of me:asure:me:nt (i.e. cubic yards. tons, pounds. etc.) Omuleh amount unit of measurement · ---C1 compost amount unit of measurement 0 fuel pellets amount ---unit of me:J.Surcment 0 press logs amount unit of measurement 0 charcoal . amount unit of measurement C1 paper amount unit of measurement tl pressboard amount unit of measurement ---0 other wood waste products
amount unit of measurement ---
17. What is the price per unit of the products you sell7
0 animal bedding s price per unit unit of measurement (Le, cubic yards, tons, pounds, etc,) Omulch s price per unit unit of measurement 0 compost s price per unit unit of measurement 0 fuel pellets s price per unit unit of measurement 0 press logs s price per unit unit of measurement 0 charcoal s price per unit unit of measurement Opaper s price per unit unit of measurement 0 pressboard s price per unit unit of measurement 0 other wood waste products
s price per unit unit of measurement
18. What is the percentage of recycled materials in each unit?
a animal bedding ---- % of wood waste in each unit---- unit of JTIC3S\Irement 0 mulch ____ % of wood waste in each unit unit of measurement C1 compost ____ % of wood waste in each unit unit of me:J.Surcment 0 fuel pellets % of wood waste in each unit unit of measurement 0 press logs ____ %of wood waste in each unit unit of measurement 0 charcoal % of wood waste in ench unit unit of =rcment 0 paper ____ % of wood waste in ench unit unit of measurement 0 pressboard _---- % of wood waste in each unit unit of measurement
0 other wood waste products------------------------------- % of wood waste in each unit ____ unit of measurement
APPENDIXB
TABLE 4.8-1
Wood Fuel Combustion Facility Capital Cost
Capital Cost Estimate
Facility Option Product IAJr Hacmc, Slam or Elec<rid<y)
Facility Boiler Steaming Rate
Casel Elect./Stoker 50,000 Lb/Hr
Site Development 500,000 Utilities, Grading, Surge Bin and Feeders
Boiler Wood Fuel Storage. Surge Bin and Feeder 500,000
Boiler Island 4,000,000 Boiler System Fuel Feeders/Stoker or Bed Emission Control System, CEM and Stack Ash System as Required Structural Steel/Siding/Foundations
Turbine Generator Island Turbine Generator Cooling Tower
Balance of Plant (As Required) Feedwater System InstrUmentation and Controls Electrical/Interconnect
Construction/Erection Boiler Island Turbine Generator Island Balance of Plant Misc. (Offices, Etc.) Steam Line (1/2 Mile)
Equipment & Construction Total
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,800,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
250,000 0
U,550,000
87
Case 2 Coal-Retrofit
~50,000 Lblar
100,000
400.000
450,000
0
100.000
100.000 0
75,000 75,000
0
1,300,000
Facility Option
TABLE 4.8-2
Wood Fuel Combustion Facility
Annual Operating Cost
Summary
Product (Air Heating, Steam or Electric) Facility Boiler Steaming Rate
Case 1 Elect./Stoker 50,000 Lb/Hr
Summary
A. Annual Labor Cost 865,400
B. Annual Materials Costs 219,000
C. Annual Contract Services and Rental Cost 159,134
D. Miscellaneous Costs 26,000
E. Fuel 1. Natural Gas 31,536 2. Fuel 1,000
F. Insurance 57,100
G. Annual Ash Disposal 44,668
H. Utilities 1. Electricity 31,397 2. Water 8.604
Total Annu3I Operating Expenses 1,443,839
89
Case2 Coal-Retrofit
150,000 Lb/Hr
80.960
46.000
6.000
0
0 0
2.350
25,428
4.524 ~
165,262
TABLE 4.8-3 <cont.)
Wood Fuel Combustion Facility
Annual Operating Cost
Facility Option Product (Air Heating, Steam or Electricity) Facility Boiler Steaming Rate
B. Annual Materials Cost Spare Parts:
Boiler Electrical Balance of Power Plant Rolling Stock Spares
Replacement Reserve Boiler Turbine Generator
Miscellaneous Bldg Clean and Maintenance Service Office Supplies & Reproduction Invoicing & Mailing Uniforms Misc. Supplies (Rags, etc.) Feedwater Treatment Cooling Tower Treatment De-Nox Urea
Case1 Elect./Stoker 50,000 Lb!Hr
30,000 30,000 50,000 5,000
20,000 20,000
6,000 5,000 3,000
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000
219,000
C. Annual Contract Senices and Rental Costs T-G Annual Maintenance & Service 20,000 Annual Boiler Inspect & Overhaul 25,000 Emission Testing 45.000 Fuel Testing 5,000 Miscellaneous 30,000 Boiler Cleaning 15,000 Elevator Maintenance & Inspect 0 Rolling Stock Lease 19,134
159,134
91
Case 2 Coal-Retrofit 150,000 Lb!Hr
10,000 6,000 8,000
0
16,000 0
0 0 0 0
6,000 0 0 0
46,000
0 0 0
6,000 0 0 0 0
6,000
TABLE 4.8-3 <cont.)
Wood Fuel Combustion Facility
Annual Operating Cost
Facility Option Product (Air Heating, Steam or Electricity) Facility Boiler Steaming Rate
G. Annual Disposal Cost
Ash 2,899 Tons/Yr $52 Per Ton
H. Utilities
Electrical
Demand:
Use:
Total Electrical Cost •
Water
Annual Cost
Case 1 Elect./Stoker 50,000 Lb/Hr
44,668
23,113
8,284
31,397
8,605
93
Case2 Coal-Retrofit 150,000 Lb/Hr
489 25,428
0
4,524
4,524
0
TABLE 4.8-5 Wood Fuel Combustion Facility
Calculation of Wood Energy Value
Annual Tons Wood Fired: WoodHHV WoodHHV Electricity Price Net Electrical Generation Rate@ MCR Wood Firing Rate @ MCR Wood Firing Rate @ MCR
Casel
32,300 Tons 7133 BTU/Lb 14.27 MMBTU/Ton $0.05 Per KWH 4,028 KW/Hr 72.28 MMBTU/Hr 5.07 Ton!Hr
Annual Elect Net Electrical Gen Rate@ MCR !KW/Hr) Wood Energy Value = Tons Wood X Price X Wood Firing Rate @ MCR (Tons/Hr)
4:028 KW!Hr Wood Energy Value = 32,300 Tons X $0.05/KWH X 5.07 Tons/Hr
Wood Energy Value = $1,283.080 = $39.72/Ton
Annual Tons Wood Fired Wood HHV Wood HHV Coal Energy Price Wood Fired Boiler Efficiency Coal Fired Boiler Efficiency Coal Displacement Rate
Case 2
18.400 Tons 7133 BTU/Lb 14.27 MMBTU/Ton $2.00 Per MMBTU 77% 807c 17.12%
Annual Wood HHV Coal Wood Boiler EfficiencY Wood Energy Value = Tons Wood X (MMBTU/Ton) X Price X Coal Fired Boiler Eff.
Wood Energy Value = 18,400 Tons X 14.27 MMBTU/Ton X 2.00/MMBTU X 77% I 80%
Wood Energy Value = $505,443 = $27.47/Ton for Coal Displaced at $2.00/Million BTU
95
' ' .;
j
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. li. 18. 19.
1. .., -· 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
TABLE 4.11-1 (34)
Utili~ Institutional And Industrial Coal FII'ed Boilers Within Approximately 75 Miles Of The Bettendorf/Davenport Iowa Region
Company/Organization
J.I. Case Linwood Stone Oscar Mayer Ralston Purina Davenport Cement Iowa/Illinois Gas & Electric Company Grain Processing Monsanto Muscatine Power & Light Interstate Power ADM Company John Deere Interstate Power University Of Iowa Cargill Cedar Rapids Mears Iowa Electric Light & Powe:-Iowa Army Amunition Plam Iowa Southern Utility
Location Approximate Distance From Davenport Area
Davenport!Benendorf Davenport!Benendorf Davenport/Benendorf Davenport!Benendorf Davenport!Benendorf Davenport!Benendorf Muscatine 30 Miles Muscatine 30 Miles Muscatine 30 Miles Clinton 40 Miles Clinton 40 Miles Dubuque 70 Miles Dubuque 70 Miles Iowa City 70 Miles Cedar Rapids 70 Miles Cedar Rapids 70 Miles Cedar Rapids 70 Miles Burlington 75 Miles Burlington 75 Miles
TA.BLE 4.11-2 (34)
Utility, Institutional. :\funicipal & Industrial Coal Fired Boilers Within Approximatly 75 Miles Of Des Moines
Approximate Distance Company/Organization Location From Des Moines
ADM Des Moines Monarch Cement Des Moines Firestone Des Moines Iowa Electric Marshall Town 50 Miles Ames Municipal Ames 30 Miles Iowa State University Ames 30 Miles Cargill Eddyville 75 Miles
117